TAC COMMENTARY ON THE FOURTH EXTERNAL PROGRAMME AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF IITA
115. The report of the External Programme and Management Review of IITA was delivered by its Panel Chair, Dr. Eduardo Venezian, in the presence of fee Chair of the IITA Board of Trustees, Dr. Pierre Dubreuil, and fee Director General of IITA, Dr. Lukas Brader. TAC Members had been provided wife a copy of the review report as well as fee response to fee report of IITA's Board and Management.
116. Dr. Venezian began by expressing his appreciation on behalf of fee Panel for fee support of IITA and fee TAC Secretariat in fee conduct of fee review. The review process was characterized by excellent interaction wife Centre management and staff at all levels, excellent and substantial documentation, and extensive interaction in fee African region wife NARS and public officials.
117. The Panel reviewed the following: the recent evolution of the Centre, programme priorities and strategies, effectiveness and efficiency of management, quality of work, achievements and impact, and expectations for the future. The Panel produced 34 recommendations in the areas it believed require attention. The main observations and recommendations of the Panel follow:
118. Evolution of the Centre: The Institute underwent substantial changes between 1990 and 1994, a period of financial restraint. It emerged with a leaner operating structure, more efficient operation, improved management, better staff relations, and improved overall work environment. Among the major changes were the geographic expansion and decentralization of the Institute's programme and internal reorganization achieved in a participatory manner. The Panel recommended that no further reorganization be undertaken and that the Institute refrain from further expansion and decentralization.
119. Programme. The Panel felt that the priorities and strategies of the Centre were well defined and justified. The Institute operated well within its mandate with an appropriate focus on poor farmers and was progressively incorporating ecoregional activities into its programme structure in cooperation with other international centres. Previous problems of lack of coordination with other IARCs had been corrected and there were generally strong relationships with NARS. With respect to IITA's four programme divisions, the Panel concluded the following: (1) There were no major issues for the Crop Improvement Division (CID) which was responsible for IITA's six mandated crops. (2) The Plant Health Management Division (PHMD) was also working very well and no major problems were perceived. (3) Major problems were encountered in the Resource Crop Management Division (RCMD), a key programme whose work and staff were disrupted by the turmoil of 1990 and the following years. The Panel made strong recommendations to reassess and strengthen this work urgently. (4) The International Cooperation Division (ICD) was felt to be too expansive in its activities, but this was driven by expansion of the research programme itself. The Panel recommended a reassessment of this division's priorities through an internal review and the incorporation of Information Services into its function.
120. Management. Overall, the Panel found management to be working very well and commended the Director General for having an accessible working style. IITA was managed in a cost-effective way. The Board of Trustees worked effectively in its governance of the Institute and had good relationships with management and staff. In the area of human resources management, however, the Panel found a number of difficult problems related primarily to the management of local staff and made strong recommendations to remedy them quickly by appointing an internationally recruited professional human resources officer. In terms of programme management, the Panel endorsed the new divisional structure and recommended no changes in order to give it time to consolidate. However, the Panel noted that because two division directors were outposted away from headquarters, special attention must be paid to ensuring that crucial interdisciplinary work goes forward despite this spatial separation. Finally, the Panel recommended that the Board and Management considered recruiting a Deputy Director General for Research to provide greater coordination and integration of the Centre's programmes.
121. Achievements and Impact. The Institute was found to be quite productive during the period reviewed, particularly in the area of plant health management. Crop improvement activities, by virtue of their more routine nature, reflected no specific breakthroughs, but good progress was being made (cowpeas, soybeans, cassava) and results were anticipated within the next few years. Training was also an area of very good progress, as was collaboration with NARS despite the large and complex geographic area within which the Centre works.
122. Future. The Panel, recognizing that Africa remained the major problem for agriculture in the world for the foreseeable future, felt that there was unquestionably a need for an institute like IITA for many years to come. The Centre had established itself in the region, was contributing, and was well poised to make a contribution to further development in sub-Saharan Africa. It deserved continued strong support.
123. The response of IITA to the Panel's report was delivered by its Board Chair, Dr. Pierre Dubreuil. He indicated that the Board had reviewed the Panel's report and agreed with nearly all of the recommendations (the Director General would comment more specifically on these). He noted that during the past year the Board had given attention to the quality of the research programme, especially the performance of the CID and PHMD programmes. The Board had noted difficulties in the RCMD programme and authorized in 1993 an internal review of its work. The Board, therefore, welcomed the recommendations of the Panel in this area. The Board was gratified that the Panel report had documented the favourable comments of NARS with respect to their relationships with IITA. The Centre had a decentralized mode of operation and the Board was pleased to see that it was working well. It, nevertheless, agreed with the Panel that the priorities and strategies of ICD should be reviewed. The Board agreed with all of the recommendations pertaining to the Board itself and had already taken steps to implement them. With respect to the recommendations on the structure of top management of the Institute - i.e., appointment of a Deputy Director General for Research and an internationally recruited human resources manager - these matters had often been discussed by the Board and there was awareness of the need for improvement. Because there had been a recent trend within IITA toward positive achievements in these areas, the Board counselled against further structural change or personnel changes. The Board had appointed a management consultant to study these issues. The consultant's recommendations would be covered in the Director General's comments on the review report.
124. Director General Brader thanked the Panel for a very good review and delivered the IITA management's response. He opened by saying that management was pleased with the conduct of the review and for interacting with staff at a variety of levels. The 34 recommendations and 21 suggestions contained in the Panel's report would be reviewed by IITA's Board at its next meeting. Dr. Brader then commented selectively on some of these recommendations. He expressed concern over the financial implications (eight new positions) of those recommendations related to new activities; their possible implementation needed to be prioritized and TAC's guidance would be helpful in this regard. The Board and management felt that two of the recommended positions - Deputy Director General/Research and Head of Human Resources - needed further consideration. Pursuant to the findings of a consultant's study of these issues, IITA had decided to recruit a Deputy Director General at-large with responsibility for both research and other tasks. The human resources position was recently filled with a locally recruited professional who was doing well. Management would monitor this situation, mindful of the Panel's recommendation.
125. Management endorsed the four recommendations to strengthen the Institute's resource and crop management research through more rigorous priority setting, use of benchmark areas, and research alliances. This kind of research required a specific set of evaluation procedures and criteria yet to be developed. The Centre would continue to develop its resource and crop management activities in a pragmatic and farmer-oriented way. Ecoregional initiatives provided an excellent basis for such development. Finally, management would follow up on the Panel's recommendation to better integrate its networks and training activities, but felt there should be a continued division of labour between ICD on administrative matters and the research divisions on technical and scientific matters.
126. In closing. Dr. Brader expressed the gratitude of the Centre for the effectiveness of the Panel and acknowledged in particular the efforts of its Chairman and the support of the TAC Secretariat.
127. The Chair then turned to Dr. Richard Musangi, the TAC Liaison Scientist for IITA and Chair of the TAC working group for the review, to open the discussion.
128. Dr. Musangi noted that IITA had moved quickly to implement many of the Review recommendations. His comments dealt primarily with the issue of programme expansion, the extent of implementation of the recommendations of the 1990 review, and his endorsement of research on yams and soybeans as IITA priorities, since these had become important commodities in Africa. He limited his remarks because the Director General's presentation had satisfactorily answered most of his questions.
129. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members raised questions on a range of issues, including the effects of policy constraints on the success or failure of natural resources management activities, the impact of the ecoregional approach on IITA's programmes, the feasibility of devolving yams and maize research to NARS to allow greater Centre priority to resource management research, the adequacy of IITA's staffing level for social science research, and how the Centre's NRM research might be most effectively organized to transmit knowledge currently available to the field.
130. On the question of policy constraints to natural resources management, Dr. Venezian observed that Africa was being asked to intensify agriculture while sustaining the environment, particularly in poor areas that were environmentally at risk. In his view, farmers were not receptive to new technologies to achieve these goals because of financial and labour costs. In the absence of macropolicy support from national governments or of international assistance. Centres like IITA would be unable to have much impact. On the question of social science staffing, the Panel felt RCMD should be strengthened as quickly as possible because it would, in turn, strengthen the Centre's ecoregional work by integrating socioeconomic and policy considerations into the development and extension of technology in a multidisciplinary way. On the devolution question. Dr. Venezian felt that the private sector would not take over crops like soybeans and maize because of policy-driven economic disincentives. While such crops might be devolved to the NARS, the latter lack public financial support and might not be strong enough to absorb this work. With regard to IITA's international cooperation, the Panel was not always certain which networks worked and why. In particular, it perceived the need to follow up with trainees to gauge post hoc the impact of the results of training. On the question of organizing NRM research and the problem of extension of existing knowledge to the field level, Dr. Brader indicated that IITA had developed good knowledge of the biology of African soils and of cultivation practices that conserved natural resources. He saw the ecoregional approach as a good vehicle for involving NARS in the application of this knowledge. He did not anticipate that this approach would change IITA's research agenda. On the question of devolution, he felt it would be helpful to have guidelines from TAC with regard to the criteria to be used in determining whether a crop should be devolved and when. He agreed that social science research was important to the ecoregional work and noted that the three social science positions had been filled.
131. Dr. Winkelmann observed that IITA was one of the few international centres with long experience in the natural resource area. Yet only limited uptake of NRM technology had been achieved. He noted that some opined that farmers did not adopt resource-conserving strategies until their farming system was about to collapse, because of problems specific to these technologies. He requested Dr. Brader's views on this hypothesis. In response, it was observed that uptake of the technologies took time because it was expensive, required knowledge and labour, and lacked local political support. It could not be undertaken with annual crops alone in the humid forest zone, but only in combination with perennial industrial crops; otherwise the soil was rapidly depleted. In response to a query on the viability of postharvest technology as a poverty alleviation instrument, Dr. Brader indicated that such technology worked for cassava products and particularly alleviated the burden of women. However, he saw this more as a training and extension activity than research. Finally, the Chair asked Dr. Venezian to convey his views to TAC on any needed improvements in the review process. He similarly requested Dr. Brader to bring to TAC's attention any inconsistencies from one external review to the next. In this context. Dr. Havener, speaking on behalf of the Chair of Centre Directors, addressed the issue of inconsistencies in reviews. The Centre Directors believed that better briefing of review panels on the Centre by both Secretariats could help to alleviate possible inconsistencies. It might also be helpful to have the chair of the previous panel participate in such briefings.
132. The Chair drew this discussion to a close, thanking Dr. Venezian and the members of the Panel for their report. He further noted that the Board and management of IITA had already begun implementing some of the review recommendations. After further consideration, TAC offered the following commentary.
133. TAC expresses its thanks to the Panel for its Review Report covering, in a comprehensive manner, a large and complex Institute such as IITA. It wishes, in particular, to place on record its appreciation of Dr. Eduardo Venezian, Panel Chair, for handling the Panel's work and interactions with IITA with objectivity and transparency. TAC offers the following commentary, prepared with inputs from the CGIAR Secretariat, to supplement the Panel's Report.
134. The Review Report is positive and optimistic about IITA. It is clear that IITA has been substantially strengthened over the past five years, and that the Institute is now well poised to proceed with its research. TAC commends IITA's Board, Management and staff for their sustained delivery of research results and collaborative activities with the NARS, achieved while the Centre was adjusting to new directions and organizational modes and at the same time strengthening its management and scientific staff.
135. The changes made by IITA include broadening of the geographic or regional scope of activities to include aspects of the mid-altitude humid and subhumid areas of East and Southern Africa; further decentralization of research; completion of transfer of rice research to WARDA; restructuring the Institute's management organization and procedures; and notable improvements in the internal work environment. In addition, IITA has reorganized its research programme into divisions, as recommended in the last EPMR, and has made changes in the programme planning, budgeting and management system. As noted by the Panel, these changes have been very beneficial, and demonstrate the leadership provided by IITA's Board and Management.
136. TAC notes that the review report has made recommendations in many areas, so as to improve IITA's effectiveness even further. In general, TAC endorses the recommendations of the Review Report. However, while it is not appropriate for TAC to comment on each of the Panel's recommendations and the follow-up actions planned by the Institute, TAC notes that while the quality of science in the plant health and management and commodity improvement divisions meets the standards of an international institute, the research undertaken by the resource and crop management division, based on its level of impact, needs to be strengthened.
137. In this context, TAC notes that although IITA's mandate emphasises an ecoregional orientation, its past successes have largely emerged from its commodity improvement and plant health management research. TAC trusts that in the future, the high standards achieved in IITA's more "traditional" commodity improvement research will also be achieved in sustainability-oriented research such as on resource management. TAC therefore urges IITA Management to strengthen its resource and crop management research, and its socioeconomic studies both of which, as pointed out by the Panel, are of vital interest both to IITA and the System as a whole, particularly in relation to Centres' ecoregional research initiatives.
138. The benefits of stronger relationships with other CGIAR Centres and the NARS are likely to increase in the future, as the System moves towards a more explicit "Programme" orientation, and begins to more forcefully implement its agreed Research Agenda. TAC notes IITA's strong relationships with CGIAR Centres such as CIAT, and expects that equally strong links will be developed in the near future with other Centres. TAC, in particular, points to the suggestion made in the Report on CGIAR Commitments in West Africa that IITA develop stronger relations with tree crop centres. In addition, TAC recommends increased attention to the NARS partnerships that are so essential to the success of every Centre within the CGIAR System.
139. With regard to the Review Report's recommendations on Governance and Research Management, TAC notes with satisfaction that the Panel assessed IITA's governance, structure, management style and research leadership positively. It is pleased, in particular, that the Institute has developed a culture of collegiality, fostered by the consultative processes encouraged by the Board and Management, and the straightforward manner of the Director-General. It is encouraged by the Board's response to the Panel's recommendations to improve Board operations; and to the receptivity shown by the Institute to further examine such issues as the structure of research leadership, project-based research management, human resource management (HRM), and budgeting and financial reporting requirements.
140. TAC recognizes that both the research coordination function and the effective management of IITA's internationally and nationally recruited staff, are vital to the continued success of the Institute and is pleased that the review report has focused Management's attention to these issues. TAC notes that for the past few years the Director General has personally provided research leadership in IITA, and that his hands-on style of managing research has been much appreciated by the scientists at IITA. However, TAC also notes the Panel's view that the research management task at an institute such as IITA - which has a large and complex mandate, and undertakes research in several countries and various field locations - cannot easily be managed on a part-time basis, particularly since the research programmes are being further decentralized, and the divisional directors operate from different countries.
141. On other research management-related matters - such as project-based research management; processes for planning, priority setting and resource allocation; and procedures for budgeting and financial reporting, etc. - it is TAC's view that the Panel's recommendations are sound, and should be implemented over the next few years by IITA's Management team. It is expected that implementation of these various recommendations will make IITA an even more cost-effective institution than it is today, and will further improve the efficiency of resource utilization. TAC also concurs with the "incremental" approach adopted by Management in recent years, and is pleased that a similar approach has been recommended by the Panel for the future as well, particularly in relation to the "pilot testing" of project-based research management in selected areas before extending its coverage to the entire research programme and research-related areas.
142. Finally, TAC is pleased that the External Review Panel confirms the positive findings of the report on CGIAR commitments in West Africa regarding the management and impact of IITA's research there. The Committee encourages IITA to continue to explore opportunities for devolving some of its production systems research to national research systems in the region.
